Subject: RE: [L1vpn] Proposed charter for L1VPN WG

From: "Brungard, Deborah A, ALABS" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 May 2005 15:56:42 -0500

Hi all,
My comment below (db),
------------
> this said, why not combining item 8 and 9 in a single item and leave
the
> multiple-provider case for the next step

I think I can agree to leaving multi-provider to the next step (although
note that we have already received a question about how to provide this
function).

In which case, we are not combining items 8 and 9. We are deleting item
9.
This is fine.

> "8. Guidelines for applying the basic and extended modes for
> single-provider networks."

Also OK.
-----------
db: As both the ITU L1VPN Recommendation and the framework draft already
refer to the need for supporting iner-SP L1VPN, I'd prefer to keep some
type of wording recognizing it as a next step vs. using restrictive
wording on single-provider solutions. Omission may be incorrectly
inferred as explicitly excluding (e.g. lack of intent/interest). For
GMPLS, (mis)understandings on support of inter-SP, inter-domain
(signaling/routing), different addressing schemes, etc has resulted in
it being the most popular topic for inter-SDO supported communications
(e.g. liaisons);-)

Deborah

_______________________________________________
L1vpn mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l1vpn

---

From: Alex Zinin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 11:22:44 -0700

To summarize the major discussion points here, I think we have a consensus
to do the following:

  1. Keep the charter L1VPN-specific, yet be good engineers and keep the
     mechanisms extensible and as generic as practical.

  2. Keep the inter-provider case out of scope for now, but mention it as
     a possible next step.

  3. Keep requirements in the framework document, unless/until we see a
     clear need to split them out to a separate draft.

Several people said that security should be mentioned explicitly in the
charter. I don't think we need to--security is the default item for all WGs
and doesn't need to be spelled out, we simply keep this in mind and do the
right thing. Unless, of course, someone had something very specific in
mind.

I will also follow up on the editorial comments and will send the revised
charter to the list.

Thanks

Alex